So, it looks like the white house and Congress are getting ready to go toe to toe over the FCC rules.....

Who will win ??

:blink:

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?p...p=1012571727088

US House rejects higher media ownership limits
By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
Published: July 23 2003 19:18 | Last Updated: July 23 2003 20:28

Viacom and News Corporation could be forced to sell some of their US television stations after the House of Representatives on Wednesday approved a bill that would overturn controversial media ownership regulations.

The House voted 400-21 for a spending bill that would return the national television cap - which currently prevents networks from owning stations that reach more than 45 per cent of the national audience - to 35 per cent. The decision brings the Republican-led Congress closer to a confrontation with the White House, which has threatened to veto the legislation.

If it wasn't for the RINOS...

I hope that, if it reaches his desk, Bush DOES veto it. The lies that are being told about that rule are absolutely outrageous. The fact is, in that business, ratings rule. The bottom line is money. If politics mattered, the Dixie Chicks would be switching to rock; and you would never hear a Dem political ad on the accused stations.

400-21. I think Congress will win. I'm with the White House on this one though.

I have no problems with the rules changing, I do not see the shift from 35% - 45% in the modern media market as being very significant. The market is so large that it would be virtually impossible for any one company to "control" it.

I don't know if the Veto would be overridden. I think part of the "overwhelming" vote was bluster. Bush had already said he would veto it so some of them were free to vote however the hell they wanted to without ever being held to answer for it... "It's gonna be vetoed anyway, so I might as well vote yay on it" type things....

I just think it is most interesting to watch this stuff when it is the same party... The republicans control all of it and when you start play fighting inside the party lines (republican or democrat), it often gets bloody real quick...

It's a matter of principle...gov't telling the private sector what to do is NOT good.

I have another type of Republican attitude on this issue - a Teddy Roosevelt Republican attitude. Accordingly, I back the House.

"gov't telling the private sector what to do is NOT good" as an ABSOLUTE is no more logical than "gov't control of the private sector IS good."

A flaming Liberal's opinion means about as much (given the current liberal BS) as a loud, stinky fart. It wrinkles the nose; but it can neither be avoided or squelched. :nyanya:

And that differs from the pronoucements of a pseudofacist with paranoic tendencies in what way?

Edited to add ...

It figures all you could come up with is an insult (or an attempt, anyway). I agree with the House on this one as I have no reason to think that consolodation of too much power - and control of the media qualifies - in too few sources is any better today than it was 100+ years ago, when Teddy was busting the trusts.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Jul 24 2003, 10:07 AM

If I remember my constitution... The opening words are "We the people"...

The airwaves belong to "we the people". The government was put in place to represent the will of "we the people". I see absolutely nothing wrong with "we the people" regulating how our airwaves are used and who has control of them...

There are definite things the government should stay out of...
There are definite things the government should be involved in... This is one of them kind of things.....

imho of course....

:blink:

Of course you see nothing wrong...BUT...what if the gov't decided that Liberal propaganda could no longer be broadcast?

BTW, that tired old argument about the public airwaves is a dog that won't hunt. The major networks already control the TV airwaves; and look at what you get and what you don't get. Remember, gov't control is affected by who's in power... :nyanya:

Pd, you didn't read my post properly. In the Capitalistic system, ratings determine what's broadcast.

Saretta,
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That's the Preamble. It is only considered a part of the actual Constitution when doing so furthers the Communist Liberal agenda. Otherwise, it is considered much the same as the foreword or introduction.

"Article. I.
Section 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. "

Those are the first words of the Constitution...

Read the rest here:
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
I doubt you learned much about it in the Liberal-controlled public school.

:salute:

lolololol......

First thing you go for is the commie label eh...lol...

I consider the document in total...always.... The preamble establishes who is doing it and why they are doing it... It is a very important part of the constitution...

If you read further than you what you posted you will also find that...

Section 2 of article 1 defines the house of representatives:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States"

and section 3 defines the senate:
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, (See Note 3) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote. "

this was later changed in amendment 17 to:
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; "

Thus making it perfectly clear that the Congress is elected by the people to represent the people and express their will through their legislative power...

Congress has somehow, somewhere gotten the idea that the FCC changes will not sit well with their "people" and are therefore against it....

Torone... I almost forgot....

add this to my last post please....

"You Fucking Facist Asshole"

Thanks :nyanya:

Saretta,
You still show your ignorance...Fascism is almost identical to Liberalism, which is practically the same as Socialism, which is the 'foot in the door' for Communism. Why Liberal voters don't appreciate the similarities is a simple thing: Libs have been in control of the educational system in this country for over 40 years. :nyanya:

Torone, kindly put THIS in your Funk and Wagnels.

Regardless of whatever tripe YOU keep trying to pass off, the majority of the planet regards facists as right wing totalitarian dictatorships.

One of their most common tactics is to embrace a little socialistic RHETORIC in their platform to appeal to the jingoisticly inclined. That may be why you are at odds with most of the planet in your persistance in obscuring the differences between facism and liberalism.

They are also very fond of claiming exclusive possession of/knowledge about "THE TRUTH" - and anyone who fails to see "THE TRUTH" (i.e., think like them) is either diabolical or a dupe. Another of their most common tactics is to brand anyone that the disagree with as a Communist. They also are very adept at dreaming up communist/leftist conspiracies to rally the paranoid elements to their cause.

I think you have that part down pretty well.

From what I remember about poli sci....

Socialism is over here and............................................... ...........................Facism is way the fuck over here

Diametrically opposed opposites.....

But I am sure you will attempt to correct me on that....

Although I will agree that there is not much difference between a "socialist dictatorship" and a "Facist Dictatorship". They do it for different reasons but usually either ends up pretty fucked up.

I suppose you studied poli sci at Berkely or UCLA. The Liberal establishment likes to separate those philosophies and make them seem different. The facts (for those interested enough to look them up) say differently. Look at the agenda. Read your Russian history, Karl Marx, and the Communist goals. Then compare Communism and Liberalism based on what they stand for.

I was Democratic until JFK was assassinated. When Johnson's 'Great Society' hit the public eye, I saw the handwriting on the wall. I was right. Since then, the Dems have been on a 'slippery slope' to Socialism. That just opens the door to the Totalitarians; just as it did in Russia. Ask Serge...He probably can tell you about how the Socialists allied themselves with the Communists in order to overthrow the existing gov't; then were, themselves, thrown out by Lenin and his Marxists.

It could happen here...



Last edited by Torone at Jul 26 2003, 07:10 AM

Now wait a minute. I thought that FDR began our trip down the slippery slope? Compared to the New Deal, the Great Society isn't much of an incline.

Facts that do not fit THE TRUTH as you see it are not an alternative opinion, they are the result of lies told by the Je..., er, LIBERAL ESTABLISHMENT. Sounds vaguely familiar to me.

I don't believe that FDR quite knew what he was birthing. I DO believe he was setting up a huge rip-off with Social Security, considering the expected lifespan vs the age of eligibility. I also believe that LBJ had Kennedy assassinated in order to become President. Of course, That is just my opinion; and the Big Bear guarantee applies...

BTW, have you read up on Russian history or the CA Dems' big faux pas yet?

I think I found the site that Torone gets most of his info from......

http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/spectrum.htm

From the farthest right column.....

SYSTEM OR MOVEMENT:

Systems Where Vested Rights Are Sacred

Examples :
(England--off and on--from Magna Carta until Popular Government intervened; America from 1776 til 1860; brief shining moments in the history of other lands.)

Family Rights & Responsibility For Children:
Semi- autonomous Families--Children's Education parent's responsibility--Inheritance rights sacred.

Property Rights:
Governmental role as to private property: To protect same with right of peaceful enjoyment and inheritance.

Ethos & Perspective:
Ultimate Authority=God, but man interprets. Moral--Values & Perspective skewed by theological concerns. Usually conservative, celebrating heritage and family, often with more understanding of religious argument than dynamics of social interaction. If not corrupt, can handle corrupt public servants. Ultimate Authority=God. Moral--Ongoing social dynamic, builds on achievements, wisdom and understanding, generation by generation. Accepts diversity, vast inequality of man. Honors forebears & heroes--role models for future--personal integrity, honor, pursuit of truth and knowledge (positive values), & chivalric code. No incentive for corruption.

Intellectual Freedom:
In cherishing the individual, provides maximum incentive to intellectual development and free inquiry.

Right To Local Self Government:
Most Government functions, local. In original U. S. (Federal Union of delegated powers), Police power concern of States only--very different Societies

and please note on the chart that it puts Hitler one column to the right of communism along with "Clinton's Puppets in Iraq" ????

This is like a total rewrite of what is reality...lololol....



:yowsa:

This chart from http://www.lahapkido.com/teach.html
shows more what I learned the political spectrum as.... I do not necessarilly agree or disagree with the text on the page as I have not read it :) I just wanted a chart illustrative of what I beleive is the "traditional" interpretation of the political spectrum... Be it right or wrong...

http://www.awrats.com/images/spectrum.gif

:ph34r: You only believe that stuff because you have been corrupted by the liberal educators (after your system was rendered weak with sugar-free soft drinks and floride) OR you are a lackey of the International Communist Conspiracy. :ph34r:

All of my pops is fully sugarized, 100% and I ain't never drank none of them guvmint infested wahter...

I is a good Merican, I is...... :blink:

:salute: :salute: :salute: :salute: :salute: :groucho:



Last edited by sarettah at Jul 26 2003, 12:01 PM

Between Conservative and Liberal, some like to claim that they are 'social liberal and fiscal conservative'...not possible, since someone has to pay the bill for the 'social liberal' part. See how it works?

I suggest you forget your poli sci and check out the way the Russian revolution worked. You might also read the list of Communist goals and look how many of them the Libs have already accomplished.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

I know, you and Pd consider yourselves to be the 'intellectual elite'; but frankly, you don't know nearly as much as you might if you actually studied something instead of allowing your heads to be filled with mush by Lib professors and Liberal TV. For instance, you can't even answer a simple question that I have asked a number of times: What is YOUR definition of Communism?



Last edited by Torone at Jul 26 2003, 11:07 AM

lolololol.... That is the first time I have seen you ask that of me...at least in this thread...(I don't recall any other times you ahve asked me, so if you know of some time that you have, please post the reference to it...)

My definition of communism eh ?? Well I have always felt that the picture of a "Utopia" as painted by Marx was the true definition of communism... Something that has not been seen on our planet with the U.S. actually ending up being the closest to...

The "Marxist" communist society would be a place where everyone would be totally equal, in all ways. The people would produce all the things needed, just because they were needed, and share them all equally and happilly. The world would be a peaceful, happy, bountiful place with no classes, no class wars, no inequalities whatever.

Unfortunately, the countries that have claimed to be, or have been labeled as "Communist" have actually ended up being socialist dictatorships, which is a level necessary within Marx's framework in order for communism to be acheived. Problem is all the countries that have embraced Marxism have stalled out at that point. It is, according to Marx, supposed to be a relatively short period in time.. The period in which the belongings of the individuals are taken and brought into ownership by the state. Later they are turned over from the state to the "people" as a whole... Then the necessity for "the state" disappears and everybody lives happily ever after:

From The communist manifesto: http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics.../manifesto.html

** sare note: The taking of the property

"We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

** sare note: establishment of socialism...

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

**sare note: this is about as far as any country following the Marxist route to communism have reached.....

** sare note: Removal of the need for a state

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

** sare note: live happily ever after

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. "


***********************************

BTW Marx lived with his head in his personal old fairy tale.....

I wouldn't be happy. I'd be miserable.